To approve the Minutes of the last meeting of
Cabinet held on 10th October 2018.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on
10th October 2018 were submitted for approval as a
correct record.

The Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group
expressed concern about the recent crime and security issues on
Warner Street. The Leader of the
Council reported that the Business & Marketing Co-ordinator
would be liaising with local businesses and the Police in the town
centre and that there would a report submitted at a future
meeting.

The Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group
reported that she had raised questions about the Town Centre Events
Programme at a previous Cabinet meeting and had had no
response. The Leader of the Council
indicated that he would ask the Business & Marketing
Co-ordinator to provide an update.

Resolved
- That the Minutes be received
and approved as a correct record.

The Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group
referred to page 2 of the Cabinet Waste and Recycling Group minutes
and the use of I-phones by Enforcement Officers and asked for
further information. The Executive
Director of Environmental Services and Town Centres reported that
technology had been introduced to record evidence and reduce
administration.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources
submitted a report to enable Members to consider the findings of
the survey conducted by Licensed Vehicle Surveys and Assessment
(LVSA). She asked Cabinet to consider
the report be LVSA and to consider what action to take in light of
the findings of the survey.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

The
Council currently has a policy of restricting the number of hackney
carriage licences issued. However in
maintaining such a policy the Council has to provide evidence that
there is no significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services
in the area in order to be in a position to refuse any new
applications for additional licences.
For this purpose it has been considered necessary to commission an
independent survey to assess the level of demand for hackney
carriage services, and that the survey should be carried out by an
organisation specialising in that area.

The present legal provision on
quantity restrictions outside London is set out in section 16 of
the Transport Act 1985. This provides that the grant of a taxi
(hackney carriage) licence may be refused, for the purpose of
limiting the numbers of licensed taxis 'if, but only if, the [local
licensing authority] is satisfied that there is no significant
demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to
which the licence would apply) which is unmet.'

Around three quarters of local
licensing authorities do not impose quantity
restrictions. The Department for
Transport Best Practice Guidance states that 'Where restrictions
are imposed, the department would urge that the matter should be
regularly reconsidered. The Department
further urges that the issue to be addressed first in each
reconsideration is whether the restrictions should continue at
all. It was suggested that the matter
should be approached in terms of the travelling public - that is to
say, the people who use taxi services.
What benefits or disadvantages would result for the public if the
controls were removed? Was there
evidence that the removal of controls would result in deterioration
in the amount or quality of taxi service provision?'

Members were informed that if
they took the view that a quantity restriction could be justified,
the question of the level at which it should be set should be
considered.

During the summer of 2018 LVSA
carried out a survey on the demand for hackney carriage services in
the Borough. During the survey the
number of hackney carriage vehicles that were actually licensed was
60, although the current limit on the issue of hackney carriage
plates had been set at 62. Two plates
had been allowed to expire and had not been renewed and it was
decided that the Council should await the outcome of the survey so
that members could determine whether there was a need to re issue
the plates.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources
submitted a report relating to the Prudential Indicators Monitoring
and Treasury Management Strategy to update Cabinet on activities in
the area since the start of the financial year 2018/19.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

‘Treasury
Management’ relates to the borrowing and cash activities
of the authority, and the effective management of any associated
risks. On 22nd February 2018
in the same report referred to at 4.1 above the Council also set
out and then approved its current Treasury Management
Strategy. This was in accordance with
the CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy)
code of practice on treasury management in public serves, the
Council having previously adopted, via Cabinet, the then revised
code of practice. Associated treasury
management Prudential Indicators were included in the February 2018
report.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources
submitted a report to inform Cabinet of the financial spending of
the Council up to the end of October 2018 and the financial
forecast outturn position for the Accounting Year 2018/19.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

The spend for the first 7 months of the
financial year to the end of October 2018 is £6,206,244
compared to a budget of £6,223,269 giving a small positive
variance of £17,000 over the first seven months of the
year.

The current forecast spend to the end of the
financial year in March 2019 is £11,107,000 compared to a
budget of £11,174,000. This
forecast produces a positive variance of £67,000. Environmental Services are predicting a positive
variance for the year. Culture &
Leisure Services are predicting a small adverse
variance. There are more significant
adverse variances on Planning & Transportation and Regeneration
& Property Services along with Policy & Corporate
Governance.

Alternative Options
Considered and Reasons for Rejection

Not applicable.

Resolved
(1) That the report be noted; and

(2) That Corporate Management Team continues to work to reduce
costs and increase income over the remainder of the year to help
improve the overall financial position of the Council.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources
submitted a report to inform Cabinet of the progress of the 2018/19
Capital Programme.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

The Council approved Its Capital Programme for
2017/18 at its meeting on the 22nd February
2018.

The total value of spend authorised in the
budget in February 2018 was £4.9m and this has been increased
to £10.6m with carry forward projects from the previous year
and new in-year authorisations. The
current predicted outturn is £10.3m. There is underspend of £324,000 (3%)
currently predicted for the year.

Alternative Options
Considered and Reasons for Rejection

Not applicable.

Resolve -
That Cabinet noted the progress on capital expenditure to
date.

The
following item was submitted as urgent business with the
Chair’s agreement in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the
Local Government Act 1972, the reason being to ensure the most up
to date information was provided.

The Deputy Leader of the Council,
Environmental Services submitted a report seeking authority from
Cabinet to make a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) pursuant to
sections 60(2) and 61(1) (a) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime
and Policing Act 2014 (“The Act”) which varies the
borough of Hyndburn (Control of Dogs) Public Spaces Protection
Order (No 2 of 2015) by adding the grounds of Churchfield House in Great Harwood and the
extension to Great Harwood Cemetery to the areas which will be
governed by the proposed order in so far as it required dogs to be
held on leads and extended the period during which the said order
was effected by a period of three years.

Approval of the report was deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

The Act required local authorities to use PSPOs instead of dog
control orders. To make a PSPO a local authority had to be
satisfied that activities carried on in a public place had or were
likely to have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those
in the locality (s 59 (2) of the Act) and that those activities
were unreasonable, likely to persist or continue and justified the
making of the PSPO. Similar
considerations have to be taken into account if the local authority
wished to extend the area governed by an existing PSPO (s 61(1) (a)
and 61(2) of the Act.

PSPO’s are live for a maximum of three years and at that
point have to be extended and varied if necessary, for them to
remain in force. To extend and/or vary a PSPO a consultation
exercise needs to be undertaken and a decision taken by
Cabinet.

A
consultation exercise was undertaken during September and October
2018. Key stakeholders such as the Police & Dogs Trust and user
groups such as Sports Teams & local ‘Friends Of’
groups were consulted to ensure those most invested had a chance to
comment. As part of the consultation an
online survey was available for Borough residents to indicate which
of the proposals for inclusion within the PSPO they were for or
against. A total of 339 responses were received via the on-line
survey. The results are available in Appendix 1 of this
report.

As
part of the consultation an email address (pspo@hyndburnbc.gov.uk)
was available for anyone wishing to make a specific point or
comment about the proposals. Nine responses were received in total
relevant to the consultation exercise. Eight responses were
received from Borough residents, all of which objected to the
proposal to exclude dogs from designated areas of Council owned
sports pitches. One response was received from the Dogs Trust, this
response commented on a more broad range of issues (refer to
Appendix 2).

Alternative Options Considered and Reasons for
Rejection

An
alternative option was to not extend and varythe currentBorough of Hyndburn (Control of Dogs) PSPO (No 2 of
2015). This has been rejected asevidence and
experience has shown that practical measures, like the current PSPO
help ...
view the full minutes text for item 243.

244.

Exclusion of the Public

Recommended That, in
accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972, the
public be excluded from the meeting during the following items,
when it is likely, in view of the nature of the proceedings that
there will otherwise be disclosure of exempt information within the
Paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Act specified at the items.

Details of any
representations received by the Executive about why the following
report should be considered in public – none received.

Statement in
response to any representations – not required.

Minutes:

Resolved
- That, in accordance with
Section 100A(4) Local Government Act
1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during the following
items, when it was likely, in view of the nature of the proceedings
that there would otherwise be disclosure of exempt information
within the Paragraph at Schedule 12A of the Act specified at the
items.

(The report will
contain exempt information under the Local Government Act 1972,
Schedule 12A, Paragraph 3 – Relating to the financial or
business affairs of any particular person (including the authority
holding that information)

Report
Attached.

Minutes:

Exempt Information
under the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the
financial or business affairs of any particular person (including
the authority holding that information)

The Leader of the Council submitted a copy of
an exempt signed Urgent Cabinet Decision form and accompanying
exempt report relating to use of the Urgent Cabinet Procedure in
respect of the land at Nook Lane, Oswaldtwistle. The
reason for urgency is that timescales are short due to the auction
date.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

The reasons for the decision were set out in
the exempt decision form and accompanying exempt report.

Alternative Options
Considered and Reasons for Rejection

The alternative options considered and reasons
for rejection were set out in the exempt report.

Resolved
- That the use of the Urgent
Cabinet Decision Procedure be noted.

(The report will
contain exempt information under the Local Government Act 1972,
Schedule 12A, Paragraph 3 –
Relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular
person (including the authority holding that information)

Report Attached.

Minutes:

Exempt Information
under the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the
financial or business affairs of any particular person (including
the authority holding that information)

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources
submitted a copy of an exempt signed Urgent Cabinet Decision form
and accompanying exempt report relating to use of the Urgent
Cabinet Procedure in respect of the purchase of a loan.
The reason for urgency is that bids for
the acquisition of the loan must be submitted by 12th
November 2018.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

The reasons for the decision were set out in
the exempt decision form and accompanying exempt report.

Alternative Options
Considered and Reasons for Rejection

The alternative options considered and reasons
for rejection were set out in the exempt report.

Resolved
- That the use of the Urgent
Cabinet Decision Procedure be noted.

(The report will
contain exempt information under the Local Government Act 1972,
Schedule 12A, Paragraph 3 –
Relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular
person (including the authority holding that information)

Report Attached.

Minutes:

Exempt Information
under the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the
financial or business affairs of any particular person (including
the authority holding that information)

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Housing and
Regeneration submitted an exempt report on the proposed disposal of
the Steiner Street Site, Accrington and to seek Cabinet’s
approval to amend the conditions previously imposed on the
sale.

Approval of the report was not deemed a key
decision.

Reasons for
Decision

The reasons for the decision were set out in
the exempt report.

Alternative Options
Considered and Reasons for Rejection

The alternative options considered and reasons
for rejection were set out in the exempt report.

Resolved
- That the recommendations as set
out in the report be approved.